[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220816111305.4851a510@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2022 11:13:05 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: shaozhengchao <shaozhengchao@...wei.com>
Cc: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<jhs@...atatu.com>, <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, <jiri@...nulli.us>,
<davem@...emloft.net>, <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>,
<weiyongjun1@...wei.com>, <yuehaibing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next,0/3] cleanup of qdisc offload function
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 11:32:03 +0800 shaozhengchao wrote:
> On 2022/8/16 11:10, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 10:04:20 +0800 Zhengchao Shao wrote:
> >> Some qdiscs don't care return value of qdisc offload function, so make
> >> function void.
> >
> > How many of these patches do you have? Is there a goal you're working
> > towards? I don't think the pure return value removals are worth the
> > noise. They don't even save LoC:
> >
> > 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> Thank you for your reply. Recently I've been studying the kernel code
> related to qdisc, and my goal is to understand how qdisc works. If the
> code can be optimized, I do what I can to modify the optimization. Is it
> more appropriate to add warning to the offload return value? I look
> forward to your reply. Thank you.
Understood. Please stop sending the cleanups removing return values
unless the patches materially improve the code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists